DOCSLIB.ORG

A New Approach to the History of the Anthropic Principle Blair Robert-Wilton Williams Iowa State University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A New Approach to the History of the Anthropic Principle Blair Robert-Wilton Williams Iowa State University Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2007 Because we are here: a new approach to the history of the anthropic principle Blair Robert-Wilton Williams Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Williams, Blair Robert-Wilton, "Because we are here: a new approach to the history of the anthropic principle" (2007). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 15019. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/15019 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Because we are here: a new approach to the history of the anthropic principle by Blair Robert-Wilton Williams A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Major: History of Technology and Science Program of Study Committee: Matthew Stanley, Major Professor James Andrews Kevin de Laplante Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2007 Copyright © Blair Robert-Wilton Williams, 2007. All Rights Reserved. UMI Number: 1443164 Copyright 2007 by Williams, Blair Robert-Wilton All rights reserved. UMI Microform 1443164 Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 ii Table of Contents Preface . iii Introduction. 1 Chapter 1 The Historiography of the Anthropic Principle . 12 Arthur Eddington: Large Numbers, Selective Subjectivism, and the. 17 Fundamental Theory Paul Dirac and the Large Number Hypothesis . 39 Chapter 2 Reanalyzing the Modern Development of the Anthropic Principle . 40 The Steady State Theory and Its Implications for the Anthropic Principle . 45 Robert Dicke and Mach’s Principle—The Enigma of Gravity . 51 Fertile Ideas: The Introduction of the Anthropic Principle . 63 Chapter 3 A New Approach to the Development and Dissemination of the Anthropic. 73 Principle Cosmology and the Anthropic Principle: An Ordinary and Useful . 77 Relationship? Cambridge Connections . 85 Anthropic Explanations? Hoyle’s Triple Alpha Process and Sciama’s . 94 Interpretation The Overhaul of the Universe: The Anthropic Principle and the New . 101 Cosmology The Dissemination of the Anthropic Principle . 109 Conclusion . 117 Bibliography . 120 iii Preface Physicist John Archibald Wheeler once wrote that “it is not necessary to understand every point about the quantum principle in order to understand something about it.”1 With great appreciation of this spirit, I present the history of the anthropic principle. Few humans—whether scientist, philosopher, or historian—would dare admit they understand the astute complexity of life and its place in the universe, but nonetheless careers have been made and lost on these very arguments. Though I lack the skills in mathematics and physical science to participate in the current debate on the anthropic principle, I possess ample historical skills to comment on its development. The danger in addressing an ongoing issue lies in the confusion of analysis and argumentation. I will neither glorify nor assault the anthropic principle. The role of the historian is to present arguments both elegant and dross, to illuminate the means by which the world works while not defeating the very subject at hand. I do not wish to be involved in the debate over the anthropic principle, but rather to analyze and comment on its development. This paper has been a labor of love, in more ways than one. Since walking into Matt Stanley’s office on March 4, 2006 and choosing this topic over all others, the paper and my life have changed beyond my wildest imaginations. Over the past year I have lived in six different places, seen my family through illness and 1 John Archibald Wheeler, “Observer Created Reality,” The Tests of Time: Readings in the Development of Physical Theory, eds. Lisa Dolling, Arthur Gianelli, Glenn Statile, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 492. iv unemployment, and had my girlfriend become a best friend. As this all happened, the thesis changed from a simple catalog of historical events into three unique historical claims, something I never foresaw a year ago. A year later, almost to the day, I am happy to say the thesis, and I, survived. I would like to acknowledge many people for their help in producing this paper. To all the coffee shops I sat in for hours and bought only a small soda: I apologize. Your internet was much appreciated. To my advising professors and colleagues I send my thanks for a helpful and patient ear. Matt Stanley, in particular, deserves many thanks for reading and commenting on numerous drafts. To Meghan I credit all my smiles—the best gift she ever gave me. To my dad I give infinite gratitude for all his hard work; if it wasn’t for his lessons I would still be making minimum wage at the bookstore. And no words represent my gratitude to my mother. She taught me love is just too valuable to feel for even a second without it. Her courage is my courage. And to those debating the anthropic principle—may you one day find an answer. If it really is the accidental universe, then the writing of this paper is just a cosmic coincidence. 1 Introduction Coined in 1973 by theoretical physicist Brandon Carter, the anthropic principle argues, to varying degrees, that life and the universe are intimately connected. Generally limited to the field of cosmology, to this day it remains a tantalizing yet extremely controversial subject. Much of the scientific debate surrounds the principle’s explanatory power—can humans use their own existence to recognize limits on the physical laws of the cosmos? Despite having supporters that count as ‘super-stars’ of cosmology—Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees, Paul Davies, among others—the anthropic principle may be the scientific tenet least understood by historians. In fact, no historian has given significant coverage to the principle’s development or dissemination. The treatment provided by philosophers and scientists is admittedly excellent, but tends to gravitate toward the principle’s validity, and neglects the very interesting discussion of the scientific milieu into which the anthropic principle was born. This thesis argues the anthropic principle is a product of twentieth century science and scientists, the result of cosmologists trying to understand the place and role of humankind in the cosmos. The fashionable account of the anthropic principle, told in so many popular science books, goes like this: the universe is big. Very big. And old. In fact, the universe is so big and old that its basic elements of quarks and photons had enough time to coalesce into mostly hydrogen and some helium and then into billions of stars collected into billions of galaxies. After a few million years these first stars died by means of a massive explosion known as a supernova, and cast off the products of its 2 stellar furnace, complex elements like carbon and iron. New stars formed from this cosmic flotsam and congregated into new galaxies. After thirteen billion years, at least one star in this vast, practically empty space found itself the owner of a planet teeming with life. Among this life was a group of men and women who called themselves astronomers, curious folks who watched the stars and asked how they arrived on this small planet. Eventually some of them questioned if their own existence could reveal any fundamental rules about the universe they called home. Some astronomers said the existence of humans could help in understanding some very complex laws of the universe, while others explored the possibility that every vast stretch of the cosmos and every burning star conspired to produce life on exactly one planet: the earth. Despite the different intentions and explanations and even disagreements on whether there was a designer of the universe or a great cosmic contingency, when they spoke of their ideas they called it the anthropic principle. Hopefully it is clear that the ambiguity of the term ‘anthropic principle’ needs to be addressed first. Scientists supporting the anthropic principle tend to pick a favorite flavor while retaining the original trope, resulting in over thirty different definitions.2 Not only does this endanger an historical account through imprecise terms, it leaves the reader fearing that the anthropic principle is really a sort of scientific street slang! By the 1980s, Carter lamented his misnomer and admitted he should have instead used self-selection principle, for it referenced not humans but 2 Nick Bostrom, Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy (New York: Routledge, 2002), 6. 3 intelligent life in general.3 The ‘anthropic principle’ label persists today for many reasons, chief among them popular familiarity. Before declaring this paper’s definition of the anthropic principle, it would do well to familiarize the reader with its structural components and then explain its more popular versions. The anthropic principle is an instance of an ‘observation selection effect.’4 This is a recent philosophical categorization largely absent from the initial publications, but it aids in understanding the historical development. To begin, a selection effect is a distorted interpretation of statistical analysis stemming from the methodology of collecting data, perhaps best illustrated in a famous fishing story by the astronomer Arthur Eddington. If the fisherman, upon reeling in his net, realizes he has collected no fish less than two inches long, is it safe to say there are no tiny fish in the lake? Well, not if the net is made of three-inch wide gaps—smaller fish would swim right through and never be collected.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Preliminary Acknowledgments
    PRELIMINARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The central thesis of I Am You—that we are all the same person—is apt to strike many readers as obviously false or even absurd. How could you be me and Hitler and Gandhi and Jesus and Buddha and Greta Garbo and everybody else in the past, present and future? In this book I explain how this is possible. Moreover, I show that this is the best explanation of who we are for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it provides the metaphysical foundations for global ethics. Variations on this theme have been voiced periodically throughout the ages, from the Upanishads in the Far East, Averroës in the Middle East, down to Josiah Royce in the North East (and West). More recently, a number of prominent 20th century physicists held this view, among them Erwin Schrödinger, to whom it came late, Fred Hoyle, who arrived at it in middle life, and Freeman Dyson, to whom it came very early as it did to me. In my youth I had two different types of experiences, both of which led to the same inexorable conclusion. Since, in hindsight, I would now classify one of them as “mystical,” I will here speak only of the other—which is so similar to the experience Freeman Dyson describes that I have conveniently decided to let the physicist describe it for “both” of “us”: Enlightenment came to me suddenly and unexpectedly one afternoon in March when I was walking up to the school notice board to see whether my name was on the list for tomorrow’s football game.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthropic Measure of Hominid (And Other) Terrestrials. Brandon Carter Luth, Observatoire De Paris-Meudon
    Anthropic measure of hominid (and other) terrestrials. Brandon Carter LuTh, Observatoire de Paris-Meudon. Provisional draft, April 2011. Abstract. According to the (weak) anthropic principle, the a priori proba- bility per unit time of finding oneself to be a member of a particular popu- lation is proportional to the number of individuals in that population, mul- tiplied by an anthropic quotient that is normalised to unity in the ordinary (average adult) human case. This quotient might exceed unity for conceiv- able superhuman extraterrestrials, but it should presumably be smaller for our terrestrial anthropoid relations, such as chimpanzees now and our pre- Neanderthal ancestors in the past. The (ethically relevant) question of how much smaller can be addressed by invoking the anthropic finitude argument, using Bayesian reasonning, whereby it is implausible a posteriori that the total anthropic measure should greatly exceed the measure of the privileged subset to which we happen to belong, as members of a global civilisation that has (recently) entered a climactic phase with a timescale of demographic expansion and technical development short compared with a breeding gen- eration. As well as “economist’s dream” scenarios with continual growth, this finitude argument also excludes “ecologist’s dream” scenarios with long term stabilisation at some permanently sustainable level, but it it does not imply the inevitability of a sudden “doomsday” cut-off. A less catastrophic likelihood is for the population to decline gradually, after passing smoothly through a peak value that is accounted for here as roughly the information content ≈ 1010 of our genome. The finitude requirement limits not just the future but also the past, of which the most recent phase – characterised by memetic rather than genetic evolution – obeyed the Foerster law of hyperbolic population growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy and the Physicists Preview
    L. Susan Stebbing Philosophy and the Physicists Preview il glifo ebooks ISBN: 9788897527466 First Edition: December 2018 (A) Copyright © il glifo, December 2018 www.ilglifo.it 1 Contents FOREWORD FROM THE EDITOR Note to the 2018 electronic edition PHILOSOPHY AND THE PHYSICISTS Original Title Page PREFACE NOTE PART I - THE ALARMING ASTRONOMERS Chapter I - The Common Reader and the Popularizing Scientist Chapter II - THE ESCAPE OF SIR JAMES JEANS PART II - THE PHYSICIST AND THE WORLD Chapter III - ‘FURNITURE OF THE EARTH’ Chapter IV - ‘THE SYMBOLIC WORLD OF PHYSICS’ Chapter V - THE DESCENT TO THE INSCRUTABLE Chapter VI - CONSEQUENCES OF SCRUTINIZING THE INSCRUTABLE PART III - CAUSALITY AND HUMAN FREEDOM Chapter VII - THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY NIGHTMARE Chapter VIII - THE REJECTION OF PHYSICAL DETERMINISM Chapter IX - REACTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES Chapter X - HUMAN FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY PART IV - THE CHANGED OUTLOOK Chapter XI - ENTROPY AND BECOMING Chapter XII - INTERPRETATIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX BACK COVER Susan Stebbing 2 Foreword from the Editor In 1937 Susan Stebbing published Philosophy and the Physicists , an intense and difficult essay, in reaction to reading the works written for the general public by two physicists then at the center of attention in England and the world, James Jeans (1877-1946) and Arthur Eddington (1882- 1944). The latter, as is known, in 1919 had announced to the Royal Society the astronomical observations that were then considered experimental confirmations of the general relativity of Einstein, and who by that episode had managed to trigger the transformation of general relativity into a component of the mass and non-mass imaginary of the twentieth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 8: the Big Bang and Early Universe
    Astr 323: Extragalactic Astronomy and Cosmology Spring Quarter 2014, University of Washington, Zeljkoˇ Ivezi´c Lecture 8: The Big Bang and Early Universe 1 Observational Cosmology Key observations that support the Big Bang Theory • Expansion: the Hubble law • Cosmic Microwave Background • The light element abundance • Recent advances: baryon oscillations, integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, etc. 2 Expansion of the Universe • Discovered as a linear law (v = HD) by Hubble in 1929. • With distant SNe, today we can measure the deviations from linearity in the Hubble law due to cosmological effects • The curves in the top panel show a closed Universe (Ω = 2) in red, the crit- ical density Universe (Ω = 1) in black, the empty Universe (Ω = 0) in green, the steady state model in blue, and the WMAP based concordance model with Ωm = 0:27 and ΩΛ = 0:73 in purple. • The data imply an accelerating Universe at low to moderate redshifts but a de- celerating Universe at higher redshifts, consistent with a model having both a cosmological constant and a significant amount of dark matter. 3 Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) • The CMB was discovered by Penzias & Wil- son in 1965 (although there was an older mea- surement of the \sky" temperature by McKel- lar using interstellar molecules in 1940, whose significance was not recognized) • This is the best black-body spectrum ever mea- sured, with T = 2:73 K. It is also remark- ably uniform accross the sky (to one part in ∼ 10−5), after dipole induced by the solar mo- tion is corrected for. • The existance of CMB was predicted by Gamow in 1946.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE - IS the UNIVERSE SPECIALLY DESIGNED to SUPPORT LIFE? by William Reville, University College, Cork
    THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE - IS THE UNIVERSE SPECIALLY DESIGNED TO SUPPORT LIFE? By William Reville, University College, Cork. Scientists are often impressed by how finely-tuned the world is for the existence of life. If any of a large number of fundamental physical properties of the world were slightly different, biological life would be impossible. The observation that we inhabit a world which is uniquely suited to us has led to the development of a scientific principle called the anthropic principle. This principle asserts that we see the universe the way it is because we exist. There are two forms of the anthropic principle, a weak form and a strong form. Most scientists find the weak anthrophic principle to be a useful methodological principle, but few scientists believe in the strong form of the principle. Others claim that the anthropic principle is not a scientific principle at all, but is just an irritating tautology. The principle is lucidly described in Theories of Everything by J.D. Barrow (Clarendon Press, 1991). The weak anthropic principle recognises that the fact of human existence requires certain conditions to be met regarding the past and the present structure of the universe. In other words, the conditions we observe in the universe must be such that allowed carbon-based observers like ourselves to arise and evolve within a certain time-frame. This time-frame must reside in a window of opportunity bounded at the late end by the death of the sun and, at the early end, by the requirement that the elements that compose our bodies must be present.
    [Show full text]
  • Demystifying Special Relativity; the K-Factor Angel Darlene Harb
    Demystifying Special Relativity; the K-Factor Angel Darlene Harb University of Texas at San Antonio, TX, U.S.A. ABSTRACT This paper targets upper-level high school students and incoming college freshmen who have been less exposed to Special Relativity (SR). The goal is to spark interest and eliminate any feelings of intimidation one might have about a topic brought forth by world genius Albert Einstein. For this purpose, we will introduce some ideas revolving around SR. Additionally, by deriving the relationship between the k-factor and relative velocity, we hope that students come to an appreciation for the impact of basic mathematical skills and the way these can be applied to quite complex models. Advanced readers can directly jump ahead to the section discussing the k-factor. keywords : relative velocity, world lines, space-time 1 Introduction 1.1 A Morsel of History Throughout time, scientists have searched for ’just the right’ model comprised of laws, assumptions and theories that could explain our physical world. One example of a leading physical law is: All matter in the universe is subject to the same forces. It is important to note, this principle is agreeable to scientists, not because it is empirically true, but because this law makes for a good model of nature. Consequently, this law unifies areas like mechanics, electricity and optics traditionally taught separate from each other. Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) contributed to this principle with his ’three laws of motion.’ They were so mathematically elegant, that the Newtonian model dominated the scientific mind for nearly two centuries.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Tour Into the History of Gravity: from Emocritus to Einstein
    American Journal of Space Science 1 (1): 33-45, 2013 ISSN: 1948-9927 © 2013 Science Publications doi:10.3844/ajssp.2013.33.45 Published Online 1 (1) 2013 (http://www.thescipub.com/ajss.toc) A Brief Tour into the History of Gravity: From Emocritus to Einstein Panagiotis Papaspirou and Xenophon Moussas Department of Physics, Section of Astrophysics, Astronomy and Mechanics, University of Athens, Athens, Greece ABSTRACT The History of Gravity encompasses many different versions of the idea of the Gravitational interaction, which starts already from the Presocratic Atomists, continues to the doctrines of the Platonic and Neoplatonic School and of the Aristotelian School, passes through the works of John Philoponus and John Bouridan and reaches the visions of Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei. Then, the major breakthrough in the Theory of Motion and the Theory of Gravity takes place within the realm of Isaac Newton’s most famous Principia and of the work of Gottfried Leibniz, continues with the contributions of the Post- newtonians, such as Leonhard Euler, reaches the epoch of its modern formulation by Ernst Mach and other Giants of Physics and Philosophy of this epoch, enriches its structure within the work of Henry Poincare and finally culminates within the work of Albert Einstein, with the formulation of the Theory of Special Relativity and of General Relativity at the begin of the 20th century. The evolution of the Theory of General Relativity still continues up to our times, is rich in forms it takes and full of ideas of theoretical strength. Many fundamental concepts of the Epistemology and the History of Physics appear in the study of the Theory of Gravity, such as the notions of Space, of Time, of Motion, of Mass, in its Inertial, Active Gravitational and Passive Gravitational form, of the Inertial system of reference, of the Force, of the Field, of the Riemannian Geometry and of the Field Equations.
    [Show full text]
  • Editorial Note To: Brandon Carter, Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology
    Gen Relativ Gravit (2011) 43:3213–3223 DOI 10.1007/s10714-011-1257-8 GOLDEN OLDIE EDITORIAL Editorial note to: Brandon Carter, Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology George F. R. Ellis Published online: 27 September 2011 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 Keywords Cosmology · Confrontation of cosmological theories with observational data · Anthropic principle · World ensemble · Golden Oldie Editorial The anthropic principle is one of the most controversial proposals in cosmology. It relates to why the universe is of such a nature as to allow the existence of life. This inevitably engages with the foundations of cosmology, and has philosophical as well as technical aspects. The literature on the topic is vast—the Carter paper reprinted here [10] has 226 listed citations, and the Barrow and Tipler book [3] has 1,740. Obviously I can only pick up on a few of these papers in this brief review of the impact of the paper. While there were numerous previous philosophical treatises on the topic, stretching back to speculations about the origin of the universe in ancient times (see [3]fora magisterial survey), scientific studies are more recent. A well known early one was by biologist Alfred Russell Wallace, who wrote in 1904: “Such a vast and complex uni- verse as that which we know exists around us, may have been absolutely required … in order to produce a world that should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of life culminating in man” [50]. But that was before modern cosmology was established: the idea of the expanding and evolving universe was yet to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Hep-Ph/9912247V1 6 Dec 1999 MGNTV COSMOLOGY IMAGINATIVE Abstract
    IMAGINATIVE COSMOLOGY ROBERT H. BRANDENBERGER Physics Department, Brown University Providence, RI, 02912, USA AND JOAO˜ MAGUEIJO Theoretical Physics, The Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, UK Abstract. We review1 a few off-the-beaten-track ideas in cosmology. They solve a variety of fundamental problems; also they are fun. We start with a description of non-singular dilaton cosmology. In these scenarios gravity is modified so that the Universe does not have a singular birth. We then present a variety of ideas mixing string theory and cosmology. These solve the cosmological problems usually solved by inflation, and furthermore shed light upon the issue of the number of dimensions of our Universe. We finally review several aspects of the varying speed of light theory. We show how the horizon, flatness, and cosmological constant problems may be solved in this scenario. We finally present a possible experimental test for a realization of this theory: a test in which the Supernovae results are to be combined with recent evidence for redshift dependence in the fine structure constant. arXiv:hep-ph/9912247v1 6 Dec 1999 1. Introduction In spite of their unprecedented success at providing causal theories for the origin of structure, our current models of the very early Universe, in partic- ular models of inflation and cosmic defect theories, leave several important issues unresolved and face crucial problems (see [1] for a more detailed dis- cussion). The purpose of this chapter is to present some imaginative and 1Brown preprint BROWN-HET-1198, invited lectures at the International School on Cosmology, Kish Island, Iran, Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Newton.Indd | Sander Pinkse Boekproductie | 16-11-12 / 14:45 | Pag
    omslag Newton.indd | Sander Pinkse Boekproductie | 16-11-12 / 14:45 | Pag. 1 e Dutch Republic proved ‘A new light on several to be extremely receptive to major gures involved in the groundbreaking ideas of Newton Isaac Newton (–). the reception of Newton’s Dutch scholars such as Willem work.’ and the Netherlands Jacob ’s Gravesande and Petrus Prof. Bert Theunissen, Newton the Netherlands and van Musschenbroek played a Utrecht University crucial role in the adaption and How Isaac Newton was Fashioned dissemination of Newton’s work, ‘is book provides an in the Dutch Republic not only in the Netherlands important contribution to but also in the rest of Europe. EDITED BY ERIC JORINK In the course of the eighteenth the study of the European AND AD MAAS century, Newton’s ideas (in Enlightenment with new dierent guises and interpre- insights in the circulation tations) became a veritable hype in Dutch society. In Newton of knowledge.’ and the Netherlands Newton’s Prof. Frans van Lunteren, sudden success is analyzed in Leiden University great depth and put into a new perspective. Ad Maas is curator at the Museum Boerhaave, Leiden, the Netherlands. Eric Jorink is researcher at the Huygens Institute for Netherlands History (Royal Dutch Academy of Arts and Sciences). / www.lup.nl LUP Newton and the Netherlands.indd | Sander Pinkse Boekproductie | 16-11-12 / 16:47 | Pag. 1 Newton and the Netherlands Newton and the Netherlands.indd | Sander Pinkse Boekproductie | 16-11-12 / 16:47 | Pag. 2 Newton and the Netherlands.indd | Sander Pinkse Boekproductie | 16-11-12 / 16:47 | Pag.
    [Show full text]
  • INVENTING REALITY EALITY “This Book Makes for Smooth Riding Over the Rough Terrain of
    “...a rich account of the dogged and often futile attempt of physicists to talk about nature.” —Alan Lightman Author of Time Travel and Papa Joe’s Pipe: Essays on the Human side of Science INVENTING INVENTING REALITY EALITY “This book makes for smooth riding over the rough terrain of ... PHYSICS AS modern physics... [Gregory] steers the reader unerringly to his provocative conclusion: reality is a function of language...” R —Lynn Margulis LANGUAGE Coauthor of Microcosmos, Five Kingdoms, and Origins of Sex Physicists do not discover the physical world. Rather, they invent a physical world—a story that closely fits the facts they create in ex- perimental apparatus. From the time of Aristotle to the present, In- venting Reality explores science’s attempts to understand the world by inventing new vocabularies and new ways to describe nature. Drawing on the work of such modern physicists as Bohr, Einstein, and Feynman, Inventing Reality explores the relationship between language and the world. Using ingenious metaphors, concrete examples from everyday life, and engaging, nontechnical language, Gregory color- fully illustrates how the language of physics works, and demonstrates the notion that, in the words of Einstein, “physical concepts are free creations of the human mind.” BRUCE GREGORY is an Associate Director of the Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. For over twenty years he has made science intelligible to audiences ranging from junior high school students to Members of Congress. B R U C E G R E G O R Y Back cover Front cover INVENTING INVENTING REALITY REALITY PHYSICS AS LANGUAGE ❅ Bruce Gregory For Werner PREFACE Physics has been so immensely successful that it is difficult to avoid the conviction that what physicists have done over the past 300 years is to slowly draw back the veil that stands between us and the world as it really is—that physics, and every science, is the discovery of a ready-made world.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthropic Explanations in Cosmology
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilSci Archive 1 Jesús Mosterín ANTHROPIC EXPLANATIONS IN COSMOLOGY In the last century cosmology has ceased to be a dormant branch of speculative philosophy and has become a vibrant part of physics, constantly invigorated by new empirical inputs from a legion of new terrestrial and outer space detectors. Nevertheless cosmology continues to be relevant to our philosophical world view, and some conceptual and methodological issues arising in cosmology are in need of epistemological analysis. In particular, in the last decades extraordinary claims have been repeatedly voiced for an alleged new type of scientific reasoning and explanation, based on a so-called “anthropic principle”. “The anthropic principle is a remarkable device. It eschews the normal methods of science as they have been practiced for centuries, and instead elevates humanity's existence to the status of a principle of understanding” [Greenstein 1988, p. 47]. Steven Weinberg has taken it seriously at some stage, while many physicists and philosophers of science dismiss it out of hand. The whole issue deserves a detailed critical analysis. Let us begin with a historical survey. History of the anthropic principle After Herman Weyl’s remark of 1919 on the dimensionless numbers in physics, several eminent British physicists engaged in numerological or aprioristic speculations in the 1920's and 1930's (see Barrow 1990). Arthur Eddington (1923) calculated the number of protons and electrons in the universe (Eddington's number, N) and found it to be around 10 79 . He noticed the coincidence between N 1/2 and the ratio of the electromagnetic to gravitational 2 1/2 39 forces between a proton and an electron: e /Gm emp ≈ N ≈ 10 .
    [Show full text]